[AOLSERVER] Naviserver Win-64 Sources

[Maurizio Martignano]

Dear all,

                While the tests seem to go rather well but are not finished yet (and it will take quite some time), I have decided to make available anyhow the result of my activity.

 

The sources (and Visual Studio 2012 project files) are available at:

http://www.spazioit.com/software/naviserver-4.99.4-Win64.zip

 

There are two categories of changes:

 

1.       The ones required to have the system compiled by Visual Studio 2012 using as target Windows 64. They are identified by the #ifdef _WIN64 clause.

2.       A set of necessary cosmetics/make up changes to the overall code base to make it more compliant with nowadays C STDs, and therefore more “acceptable” to nowadays C compilers, they are:

a.       I have made explicit all type conversions (with explicit casts)

b.      I have modified all functions defined in K&R C STD, changing them  into ANSI C STD

c.       I have removed from the code base all reserved words, e.g.: new, delete, bool …

 

These change make the entire codebase less “old-style” and more maintainable in the future.

 

Hope it helps,

Maurizio

 

[Maurizio Martignano]

Any comment?

 

========

These changes make the entire codebase less “old-style” and more maintainable in the future.

 

Hope it helps,

Maurizio

 

[Maurizio Martignano]

To facilitate the discussion, I put in here some examples of the changes I made:

 

2.a.

From

mapPtr = ns_malloc(sizeof(Map));

To

mapPtr = (Map *) ns_malloc(sizeof(Map));

 

2.b.

From

int

TclX_WrongArgs (interp, commandNameObj, string)

Tcl_Interp * interp;

Tcl_Obj * commandNameObj;

char * string;

{

To

int

TclX_WrongArgs (Tcl_Interp * interp, Tcl_Obj * commandNameObj, char * string)

{

 

 

2.c

 

From

       if (new) {

To

       if (mm_new) {

 

 

All these changes have been applied everywhere.

[Jeff Rogers]

Maurizio Martignano wrote:

> 2.A set of necessary cosmetics/make up changes to the overall code base

> to make it more compliant with nowadays C STDs, and therefore more
> “acceptable” to nowadays C compilers, they are:
>

> a.I have made explicit all type conversions (with explicit casts)
>
> b.I have modified all functions defined in K&R C STD, changing them
> into ANSI C STD
>
> c.I have removed from the code base all reserved words, e.g.: new,
> delete, bool …

Are you building with a C compiler or a c++ compiler? new, delete, and
bool are not reserved words in any dialect of C that I'm aware of.
C++ is also pickier about casting; in C you should be able to cast any
pointer to or from a void* without a cast.

The K&R definitions can go; It's somewhat shocking there would be any
still around.

-J


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
aolserver-talk mailing list
aolserv...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aolserver-talk

[Maurizio Martignano]

Dear Jeff,
Thank you very much for your remarks. I would like to share what I
think.

2.a
Of course we are talking about C files and not C++ files, so any compiler
will accept the sources as they are (at least till now). But the point here
I believe is making the codebase easy to read and maintain. Nowadays
programmers (unlike us I am afraid - I am 52 years old) are used to C++
more than C; so trying to use the common subset between ISO C e C++ standard
make sense. If I take gcc and I compile the code with the option
"-Wc++-compat" I get a warning for every ISO C construct that is outside of
the common subset of ISO C and ISO C++, e.g. request for implicit conversion
from void * to a pointer to non-void type.
So that is an effort in making the code easily readable by programmers (not
compilers) with C++ background.

2.b
Shocking? Have a look at the file "tclXkeylist.c"... The same construct is
used here and there in other places (look at the diffs).

2.c
Well the new STD 201X defines as keyword (see section 6.4.1) "_Bool", but
there's a macro definition converting "bool" to "_Bool" . For "new" and
"delete" the point is once again avoiding mismatches between C and C++,
causing confusion to a reader/programmer/maintainer with a C++ mindset.

Summing up:
1. I have done a static code analysis of all the codebase.
2. I have identified these discrepancies and corrected all of them
3. This makes the overall system easier to read and to maintain

BTW: 90% of my current business (bread and butter) comes from doing this
type of analysis on various systems. Most of the time it is for embedded
systems used in avionics applications. There the language is mostly Ada and
not C or C++.

Hope it clarifies my point,
Maurizio

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rogers [mailto:dv...@diphi.com]
Sent: 16 October 2012 01:38
To: Maurizio Martignano
Cc: aolserv...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Naviserver Win-64 Sources

Maurizio Martignano wrote:

> 2.A set of necessary cosmetics/make up changes to the overall code
> base to make it more compliant with nowadays C STDs, and therefore
> more "acceptable" to nowadays C compilers, they are:
>
> a.I have made explicit all type conversions (with explicit casts)
>
> b.I have modified all functions defined in K&R C STD, changing them
> into ANSI C STD
>
> c.I have removed from the code base all reserved words, e.g.: new,

> delete, bool .